The "war with PAL" picture thread.

GeoModder · January 7, 2009, 15:42

Okay, here's how things progessed since we attempted to invade PAL.
Let's start in 575 BC, when PAL gave us a warning at the onset of the turn because of our advancing axe stack. (first pic)

So, it's our turn and we choose to ignore their warning, and move our stack "in the pit" so to speak. (second pic)

550 BC:
Bad idea it seems, since about half of our stack is obliterated following a DoW from PAL. (third pic)
We retreat the remnants of our stack as you can see at the onset of turn 525 BC. (fourth pic)

525 BC: We got creamed again. 3 axes and 2 workers lost, and Watership Down under siege. The only highlight is that we spotted the PAL Biti warrior. (fifth pic)

GeoModder · January 7, 2009, 16:09

Then we come on the part were our little dispute with PAL started.

As I told before, I didn't take screenshots from 500 BC. Too bad, because I could have checked PAL's claim on how they advanced to Valley Hutch. Tony told in the disputes thread they build a second road east (6) of their stack next to Heliopolis and moved next to Valley Hutch in the same turn, but I have my doubts about that. There were 2 workers chopping a forest on the hill PAL occupied in 500 BC, and when I opened the turn (before PAL) those 2 workers had stopped the chopping and were ready to move. Something that (in my experience) only happens if hostile units are just next to them. (first pic)

The result we all now: (second pic)

Chuckman · January 7, 2009, 18:16

The point of contention is that PAL moved 2nd in 500bc they then moved first without waiting for 24hrs to pass during 475bc. This resulted in the violation of the double move rule.

Is my understanding correct?